A Less-Awful Marmon-Herrington Tank.

[@ulissedazante5748]

Aberdeen proving ground: testing every lemon with a straight face.

[@F14thunderhawk]

i would love to see Aberdeen turn this series into a KZbin series where they actually test real lemons. And then every test ends with the Abrams test: How fun is it to crush with an M1A2SEP

[@gittyupalice96]

@Samson Themighty got to be the best job, driving and shooting tanks that the government will probably end up just shooting holes in the side of and scrapping. No pressure to not break it, when the job is TO break it lol.

[@mtssman]

@Samson Themighty ......you send it to Aberdeen proving ground 😆😆😆

[@EmpPeng2k7]

Aberdeen proving ground: Fixing the unfixable, because damn it we are going to do the tests we need to do

[@looinrims]

Well yeah they test dogshit so much they probably aren’t phased

[@jimwegerer5988]

Army tester: The brakes overheated again, how do you fix it? Marine driver: We just kick them a few times. Army tester: And that fixes them? Marine driver: No but it makes us feel better!

[@colbeausabre8842]

My grandfather was a railroad machinist, his answer to any problem was to hit the offending part with his pipe wrench. If that didn't work, He say "Get a big hammer"

[@catfish552]

Army officer: "And you guys really operate this thing? Like, seriously, for real?" Marine officer:

[@steeljawX]

'Operate' and 'operate on' is just 2 letters and a space space from a world of difference and the entire story. One requires a medical degree, the latter requires a Marmon-Herrington advertisement.

[@robertl6196]

Reading between the lines, you can practically hear all of the swearing.

[@SteamCrane]

I think that at that time, they had the continual expectation of impending mechanical failure that you still see with Britons, southern Europeans, and Russians.

[@llllib]

Well I guess these vehicles played an important role, in that after they were replaced with Stuarts/Shermans, marines must have felt like they can fly and destroy worlds.

[@loficampingguy9664]

"This was the second differential to fail in this particular tank in the period of about three weeks." I see Marmon-Herrington was taking their differential design inspiration from the Panther.

[@Bird_Dog00]

More like taking the differential from a 3 ton truck and putting it on a nearly 6 ton tank... But yea, I can see where you get the idea.

[@filmandfirearms]

The Panther had more issues with its HL230 engine than its final drive. The final drive issues were mostly due to a lack of spare parts thanks to Germany having very little infrastructure left

[@GeneralJackRipper]

It's reports like these that give real context to the idea of automotive reliability.

[@KaladinVegapunk]

@Samson Themighty haha what? I mean 70 years ago sure..but you do realize our cars have been janky plastic crap for decades? Compared to BMW or british cars, and especially japanese trucks, ford is a joke The famous Top Gear test of that toyota hilux surviving fire, ocean, a building demolishing, and driving away..? An F150 would have been totalled instantly

[@KarltheKrazyone]

Its interesting how we decide on what our standards are these days. It wasn't that long ago that many companies who owned vehicles did a lot of in-house work on them. Even to the point of working crews being sent out to field sites taking a mechanic with them just as a matter of course for the vehicles, never mind the heavy equipment they might be traveling with. Sure, a lot of stuff has gone to "black box" but my current vehicle is my highest mileage and currently best running that I've ever owned (though given my vehicle history that isn't saying much)

[@TestTestGo]

Technology gets better over time. Right now we expect our computers to crash every now and then and think nothing of it. Give it 50 years and they'll be running reliably for years without an issue.

[@cheyannei5983]

@@KaladinVegapunk BMW? Didn't they make a car with a special opening procedure for the hood, because if you didn't have two people to open it, the supports would snap? Oh, right, and this was knowledge considered to be technicians-only by BMW.

[@jic1]

@@KaladinVegapunk "British cars"? Seriously?

[@Bird_Dog00]

Loved that one. A reminder that "less awfull" can still be awfull. I realy dig the way those guys at Aberdeen had with words.

[@fien111]

"The Marines were familiar with and prepared for the multiple, horrible mechanical failures and had spare parts ready to repair them" Sounds like Marines, alright. We got busted, hand-me-down shit that even the Army wouldn't take? Yeah, yeah. Figure out where it breaks, how to fix it, and what office of the Navy to bill it to.

[@ThroneOfBhaal]

I'm sorry, there is just no room in the budget. *Strokes the air forces order of like... 1,763 F-35As* Just no room at all...xD

[@Tomyironmane]

@@ThroneOfBhaal You forgot the B-21

[@ThroneOfBhaal]

@@Tomyironmane Oh delightful, 700 million USD each. We'll take 150. But there is still no room in the budget... ;)

[@francesconicoletti2547]

“Mechanically unreliable “. The author of that report has been listening to too many British Officials. That is a vast understatement. Prone to routine failure, perhaps.

[@Nipplator99999999999]

That's what always got me into trouble doing phase inspections and Airframe modifications, I wrote down exactly what I was thinking, and the Army brass-holes wanted their perfumed speeches and empty thoughts to magically improve the airframes. Some of them were older than myself and still waiting for the enhancement depot slot for update.

[@Graham-ce2yk]

Thank you for covering these obscure vehicles, since the T-16 did make it into combat in the Aleutians the official reports will make for some interesting reading.

[@stuartross282]

Love the driver been referred to a chauffeur

[@wraithcadmus]

"Driving Miss Degtyaryov"

[@cirian75]

chauffeur? lol I was only ever called Driver/idiot/moron when I drove Challenger 1 in the mid 90s

[@ringowunderlich2241]

With the loss of the empire came the loss of the manners and politeness of true gentlemen.

[@TestTestGo]

Alternatively, people who are not members of the aristocracy are now permitted to reach positions of importance. It's all about perspective.

[@chuckygobyebye]

Oh, I bet you were called worse than that on occasion.

[@cirian75]

@@chuckygobyebye A lot lot lot worse, you need to keep it kid friendly on KZbin

[@allangibson2408]

Drivers at this time were in charge of mule teams... where do you think the Teamsters got there name from.

[@witeshade]

All the Marmon Harrington name dropping in the sales brochure sounds very Neil Breen-ish. "Edited by Neil Breen. Written by Neil Breen. Directed by Neil Breen. Filmed by Neil Breen. Lead actor Neil Breen. ADR Neil Breen. Foley Neil Breen. Gaffer Neil Breen. Best boy Neil Breen." And so on

[@fuferito]

Best there is. Best there ever was. Ask Neil Breen, he'll tell you.

[@Stardude78]

These are professionally made tanks made to professional standards.

[@HSMiyamoto]

I did something like that with a video I made for Media Arts class a few semesters ago: Producer: Hannah Miyamoto, Executive Producer: Hannah Miyamoto, Director: Hannah Miyamoto, Transportation by Hannah Miyamoto, Catering by Hannah Miyamoto, Based on an Idea stolen from: Hannah Miyamoto, Special Thanks to Hannah Miyamoto, and so on. "No animals were harmed in the making of this film, although we tried."

[@steeljawX]

I feel like Marmon-Herrington and Billy Mays (rest his soul) could have made something. . . . . awesome and not the slang kind of awesome meaning cool. It would definitely bring some sort of awe to the public.

[@ausaskar]

Real human Breen, and a real hero.

[@FullSemiAuto357]

I found it interesting and informative.

[@willythemailboy2]

I found it informative and interesting. Perhaps I should have read the manual first.

[@abelq8008]

Nice Josie Whales profile 🤠

[@DanTDirect]

@@willythemailboy2 I

[@frankgulla2335]

A terrific piece on the challenges of building a reliable tank in the 1920s and 30s. Thank you

[@dcbanacek2]

Considering all the "Free _Insert Nation's Name Here_ Forces" there were who lost the mother countries manufacturing capability when the various Axis forces rolled over them, I'd have to say they were very desperate indeed.

[@BHuang92]

Any tracked vehicle with a gun is good enough............

[@theultimatederp3288]

@@BHuang92 New Zealand: *Bob Semple tank intensifies*

[@ScaryFoot]

@@BHuang92 Soviets: put a 122mm howziter on a tractor chassis, slap some bulletproof plates on it, and behold, the SU-2S.. The SU-2 is even more weird looking, still a tractor but it has a fully rotating 76mm gun on top.

[@ScaryFoot]

The gun was so powerful it rocked the entire vehicle backward when it fired, the 76mm one.. so they had to put a bunch of stops behind it to not fall off.

[@ekscalybur]

"Practical application of roll-over drills" LOL

[@andrewcox4386]

I note the MTLS also had a failure of the oil line by the filter - seems like a common weakness of MH engine bays

[@rogerlafrance6355]

Meanwhile, the Army was in Louisiana having their fun and games with their not ready for prime time equipment. Somehow all this test data makes it to the right people in time for the conflict and the term MIL Spec was born.

[@paulbarthol8372]

I wonder how many other tanks had been cannibalised so the Marines could bring that many spares.

[@hendrikgreiner8449]

If you ever want a new job, Nicolas, i suggest advertisment. That read of the sales brosure was quite convincing, judging from your tone!

[@thomaslinton5765]

With the Marmon Motor Car Company's fortunes waning during the Great Depression, Walter Marmon found an ally in Arthur Herrington, who had served as a chief engineer in the Motor Transport Section of the U.S. Army

[@wagnerloose7650]

That bunny still haunts me in my nightmares...

[@DefconMaster]

Monty Python or Re:Zero?

[@karlbrundage7472]

In the words of CW McCall: "He said her shaft is bent and the rear-end leaks- you can fix'r quick with an oily rag, just use a nail to start 'er- I lost the key. Don't pay no mind to that whirrin' sound. She uses a little oil, but outside of that, she's cherry.............................................. From: Classified CW McCall

[@christopherreed4723]

"Took two full quarts of forty-weight oil just to get her to the Conoco station. And I pulled up to the Regular pump and then Harold Sykes and his kid come out. He says, "I've seen better stuff at junkyards and where'd you ever get that truck?" 'Bout the last place on this planet I expected to trip over a C.W. McCall reference. I tip my hat to you, Sir. And from the sound of it, comparing the Marmon-Herrington or any of it's relatives to a shed on wheels of a clapped-out '57 Chevy pickup is either paying the M-H a serious compliment, or asking for indignant Chevy fans to start reaching for their baseball bats. Not entirely sure which...😄

[@USAAmutual45]

17:55 proving that the turret monster can exist even without a turret.

[@BobSmith-dk8nw]

Yes. Interesting and informative. I marvel once again at the dedication of the engineers and Marines who worked with this piece of crap. .

[@donaldparlettjr3295]

I love the sarcastic reading of the advertisement for the tank/tankette.

[@MarkVrem]

Makes me wonder what defense contractors today produce items that make them a great deal of money during peace-times, but would be exposed during a major war. Going promptly out of business during the time the most money is out there to be made. Like these Tankette producers cashing those 1930s defense budget checks. Making governments worldwide feel safe and comfy with the 1000s of tanks they just ordered and still being under-budget.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

As the British found, the Tankette can be developed into a useful utility vehicle (The Carrier family), but as is, building up the technical and logistical know how to run tanks it probably its biggest use. Remember, in the 30's, the USA had an unusually high level of motorisation compared to the rest of the world. Some countries had to build all those attendant skills (Motor mechanics, making service parts) from near enough scratch.

[@washingtonradio]

@@jon-paulfilkins7820 In WWII there were only 2 armies that could be called fully motorized - US Army and Royal Army. All other countries lacked automotive/truck manufacturing to even come close.

[@Grimmtoof]

@@washingtonradio I think you mean the British Army not the royal army. Only the navy and the air force are royal in the UK.

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

@@washingtonradio Royal? You mean the British Army? It is never royal as its founding units was technically on the other side in the king vs parliament spat a few years back. Even though they did bring the monarchy back when the rump parliament failed. Units can be royal, the most senior being formed in exile! But the army as a whole, cannot have the title 'Royal'.

[@ineednochannelyoutube5384]

Tankettes are useful, both to establish manoiver doctrine, train units in operating machinery, and combined arms warfare, and they can be rather effective in a reconnaisance or infantry support role. They also make for perfect artillery tractors, apc conversions, engineering vehicles, and potentially even airborne armour. However investing in them to the tone of thousands of units is probably less effective than standing up one or two divisions of real armour.

[@steveorn5244]

Love the Royal Canadian Dragoons golf shirt, looks like it came right out of the regimental kit shop!

[@bradyelich2745]

The Chieftain is in character saying "sorry" to his hat wearing shell, after he bumps it.

[@whiskeytangosierra6]

I must wonder which members of Congress were stockholders in Marmon-Herrington and thus who brought pressure to bear on the initial purchase decision?

[@Bird_Dog00]

I think it was more a case of "we realy, realy need anything with some armour, a set of tracks and a gun we can somehow get our hands on".

[@dcpower777]

Use to be made right down the street from my house here in Indianapolis

[@tsk9277]

I love that this information exists.

[@The_Modeling_Underdog]

Marmon-Herrington: the Curtiss of armoured vehicles.

[@pinestumps8622]

I would love a piece on Harry Knox and his work with ordnance at rock island back in the 20s & 30s

[@danhurley148]

Too bad Tom and Ray of CAR TALK aren't still around, Ut would be a great cross-over episode

[@fredorman2429]

The tank would reliably break down. I now understand what the cynical expression, “Good enough for government work” means.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Interestingly, back in the WW2 era, it actually meant it met high standards.

[@shorttimer874]

I'd be curious to see the same type of coverage of the M114. Our platoon had 9 M114A1E1 and 1 M113. The tracks spent most of their time sitting in the motor pool, with a run to the alert area every couple of months, a rail trip to Graf once a year for the tanks to practice gunnery, a few adventures for training and testing, and a pretty good workout for Reforger. We never pushed them or really experienced what they could do. Usually one or two of them were dead, we'd tow them to Graf to get enough priority to actually get them repaired. Since I've gotten out of the military I've heard how bad they performed in 'Nam, especially with the nose sticking out in front of the tracks and sticking into the sides of rice paddies and that poor 283 just not having enough juice to pull them back out. Can't help wondering how they passed trials in the first place. And why they were upgunned to a 20mm that we only had 30 seconds of ammo for, I'd think a .50 with a whole lot of ammo would be better, both could take out another track and neither would do more than scratch a tank's armor.

[@thomaslinton5765]

HH6-COE4 Semi-double-axle all-wheel drive truck supplied to the USSR under the Lend-Lease, where it was used as a chassis for the "Katyush" rocket.

[@lwilton]

That tank picture at 22:54 showed some very unusual armament. It looked like a very large headlight and a pair of bugle truck air horns. Or maybe a pair of trombones.

[@danhurley148]

It belonged to Patton....He loved to sound his own horn. I mean, seriously, he has a SIREN on his tank when commanding the 2nd AD....

[@panzerabwerkanone]

A tank designed to train tank repair crews.

[@r.g.o3879]

I served from 81 to 89 in self propelled artillery units. We had M109 A1s and M577A1s, and M548s. We commonly performed what we called a pivot steer, did many myself with the 577. You just locked the one track and spun around in whichever direction you wished. Saw two M60s lost on the Autobahn pivot steer which blocked off a couple lanes of traffic with the resultant nasty accident. They used to tell us not to talk about this but as it was 40 years ago I guess that's long enough lol

[@Lintary]

These Marmon-Herrington tanks sound like Lotus cars. People know all the flaws and still buy them :D

[@eze417]

When I was a kid in the 70's there was a Saturday morning TV show called Ark II, and they had an episode called "The Tank." KZbin has the episode if y'all want to get a peek at it. The comments say it's a USMC Marmon-Herrington that served in the Aleutians during the war. A faux cannon has been placed where the .30 Browning in the front used to be. Looks like it might have been a fun ride and perhaps a useful tank in those areas where the enemy had no tanks capable of defeating it.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

If I had to put money on it, it looks more like a Marmon Herrington tractor that someone put a replica of an M1 body on top of. I don't think it's actually an armored body, and the external bogie reinforcing struts I've seen on some of the tractors.

[@eze417]

@@TheChieftainsHatch Thanks. The Chieftain's knowledge on these matters is highly valued. At first I thought it was an M3 Stuart modified as a command vehicle, but it looked too small, and the bogies were different. Some on there were saying the body is actually fiberglass.

[@petesheppard1709]

That must have been a very uncomfortable few days for those Marines, having to explain their vehicles..

[@SteamCrane]

I am suddenly reminded of Fred Crismon, a master of sarcasm that had actually dealt with US military vehicle lunacy.

[@luisnunes2010]

Who else would gladly take a italian tank against one of these? P.s. Props to the Aberdeen staff for half rebuilding that thing.

[@Stardude78]

It's a mystery why the weren't just license building/cloning Carden Loyd tankettes like literally everyone else.

[@TheAngelobarker]

except italian tanks were very reliable. They were even a fair tank for 1940...they just got used for far too long due to industrial problems. The axis tanks had to come all the way across libya and part of egypt to get to el alamein. compare the British tanks where they would lose so many to malfunction it would halt their advance.

[@luisnunes2010]

@@TheAngelobarker And had real tank guns. I said I would feel fine fighting these in an italian tank. Or a japanese one.

[@luisnunes2010]

@@Stardude78 Not invented here? 😉

[@TheAngelobarker]

@@luisnunes2010 the way you said it was implying italian tanks were terrible

[@666Blaine]

But why did they all pull to the right? The bent triangle-plates wouldn't explain why they all did it. The fact that they confirmed that the rolling resistance on both sides was even AND replaced the differential makes this a bit of a mystery. Maybe the differential was off center and it was torque-steering? (Sorry, I build transmissions for a living so this probably bothers me more than it should.)

[@SteamCrane]

If you could get a look at the classified internal evaluations of USS Gerald R. Ford, Zumwalt, LCS, or F35, they would probably read in a similar way. USAF is seriously looking at building brand new F-15's and maybe F-16's due to the F-35 fiasco. The military will never learn.

[@joeblow9657]

LOL sounds about right. Wasn't the f-35 supposed to be starting to be a major component of US military aviation by now?

[@SportbikerNZ]

Marmon-Herrington - using nothing but the best Christmas cracker design philosophy.

[@carlcarlton764]

Hi Nick and Ken, could you post a link to the video where you discussed Marine tanks? I must have missed this.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/lXWlnoGrrtuZidk

[@crudboy12]

So the only part of this machine that actually worked as designed for any amount of time was the bit made by ford.

[@gustavlicht9620]

The engine overheating would have been an easy fix by increasing the size of the radiator. The differential could have been replaced by clutch-brake steering. Interesting why this wasn't done as a retrofit.

[@danhurley148]

Don't laugh, you may be driving something by MH "The Marmon-Herrington Company, Inc. is an American manufacturer of axles and transfer cases for trucks and other vehicles.[1] Earlier, the company built military vehicles and some tanks during World War II, and until the late 1950s or early 1960s was a manufacturer of trucks and trolley buses. Marmon-Herrington had a partnership with Ford Motor Company, producing trucks and other commercial vehicles, such as buses. The company may be best known for its all-wheel-drive conversions to other truck maker's units, especially to Ford truck models.[2] Founded in 1931, Marmon-Herrington was based in Indianapolis, Indiana, with a plant in Windsor, Ontario, and remained in Indianapolis until 1963. It is now based in Louisville, Kentucky."

[@DavidGarcia-fe7lv]

Aberdeen documents are the best thing to come to us

[@HanSolo__]

Sir, is it common among tank crews to make models while sitting in the camp? Do the command find it useful they don't care, or don't even know? Curator sir David Willey said in one of his new videos: "making models helps tankers remembering the enemy and friendly vehicles." As I understand, he meant distinguishing between minor details of, let's say, a deeply modernized model, which can look very similar to the old piece. Doing 1st Apr video from the military base could work well in terms of PR of the armored forces and attraction for the young ones deciding their future career ;) Back to our tank on the chat: these 8x8 are considered this exact way. Type 16 being a "Wheeled Tank" is indeed an interesting idea. Both B1 and Type 16 are nicely low in silhouette. Like the look of both. Opposite to all other big-gun 8x8 of the world. B2, Stryker, or some trail models - meh.

[@BrotherWalrus]

To also quote from Ken Este's Marines Under Armor, p22-23: "Tests with only .22-caliber ammunition had produced bullet splash through the vision ports and engine louvres... The staff evaluated the bullet-splash problem of the CTL-3 as proof that it was vulnerable to .30-caliber and larger weapons." Imagine fielding a tank that isn't even bulletproof. Also imagine being told about this weakness, and then deciding to procure the tank anyway! Who could possibly be so out of touch with reality to do this? The Marine Corps! Top brass heard this and decided to go ahead with the CTL-3 anyway, against their subordinates' wishes to adopt the M2 Light (or literally anything better and with a turret) instead. It only took the fall of France for them to realize that MAYBE a tankette with a .50-cal wasn't good enough to storm a beach in 1940!

[@naamadossantossilva4736]

Probably the MH was cheaper.bean counters are an ancient plague.

[@PSPaaskynen]

They needed armour to train with and at the time did not have landing craft that could take heavier vehicles.

[@BrotherWalrus]

@@PSPaaskynen I won't deny the point about training, but the Corps made the decision to keep the CTL-3 in April, and quickly sidelined the weight requirement in July when they figured that they'd probably be fighting Panzers if they ever had to make a beach landing on Vichy French islands. In the end, the strict weight restriction ended up being unnecessary - they found out in November that the M2A4 worked just fine with existing LCM's anyway!

[@keithdoms4224]

These tanks were around long enough for at least one toy maker to make a rubber toy of one complete with a crewman's head sticking out. I always thouhgt it looked so weird because the toy company was tring to imagine what a tank should look like.

[@larrysmith6797]

The front drive wheels look pretty good. I'll bet you could adopt the design to off road bead lock style wheels for pick up trucks and sell a lot of them.

[@ThroneOfBhaal]

marmon-herrington Marmon-herrington Marmon-Herrington MaRmOn-HeRriNgTon MARMON-HERRINGTON *shrieks* M A R M O N - H E R R I N G T O N Maybe if they say it enough I'll buy 60.

[@JakeTheTankmaster]

Q: I once saw a video of an Abrams starting up from the inside. The driver's instruments had the speedometer in Miles per hour, but the actual Mileage was in Kilometres. Why's that?

[@davidbrennan660]

It’s an Army thing.

[@reginaldbentworth9159]

i would assume its something to do with knowing how much fuel you have burnt? the military usually uses kilometres for distance unless im wrong, so if you know your objective is 15 clicks away and you only have 10 clicks of fuel you have to refuel where as if it was in miles there may be mistakes when doing the math, just a possibility

[@davidhorn5771]

Foreign subcontractors...

[@dmanbiker]

It's probably just for familiarity because the American tank drivers would be acclimated to driving in MPH, while the US military still uses metric distance measurements.

[@almondsnackbar4969]

Map and road distance in METERS for map reading. Convoy and speed limits are in MPH for ease of common conformity.

[@trekaddict]

I'D be interested in what has to be a counterpoint in most respects. The test report of a very unknown, obscure tank, the M4 Medium.

[@alanrogers7090]

Sorry, Nick, the Estes bok is actually named, "Marines Under Armor", by Kenneth W. Estes, and came out in 2000. I have this book, and many others about armor, as my dad was a driver of the M5A1 Stuart during WWII. He was in the 7th Armored Division, 473rd Reconnaissance, Troop F in Europe.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

Wait, what did I say? You may be interested in my interview with Ken here. kzbin.info/www/bejne/lXWlnoGrrtuZidk

[@jic1]

Lest anybody get the impression from this and the previous video that Marmon-Herrington were a bunch of incompetent clowns who made garbage, I think it's worth noting that they are still in business. They make axles, transfer cases, and transmissions for trucks and heavy vehicles.

[@davehood2667]

Not likely a matter of desperation, Marmon-Herrington was no doubt some Congressman's pork kickback buddy.

[@Stardude78]

The Dutch bought from them. That was clearly an act of desperation.

[@bwilliams463]

It sounds like several of the component failures may only be attributed to Marmon-Herrington because of installation of low-quality parts from other suppliers, most likely in order to save money.

[@Bird_Dog00]

That may have been an issue. Though as I understand it, the very severe weight restrictions imposed by the military also played a role as it would have prevented the use of heavier - and thus tougher - parts.

[@blueboats7530]

No one has commented yet the Chieftan's shirt colors are Marine Corps red and gold

[@bradyelich2745]

Royal Canadian Dragoons.

[@thomaslinton1001]

NOTE: I find a reference to the "T-16" being the MH CTLS-4 as sold to the Dutch., only to be rquisitioned by the U.S. JUNQUE! see also drawing of T-16 at commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:T16_light_tank.jpg

[@richardm3023]

Marine testing "Does it fit in the landing craft?", "Yes SIR!". test complete.

[@Bird_Dog00]

That's probably rather close to the truth...

[@ditzydoo4378]

Soooo U. S. Marine Corps view: It's what we have, so we'll make the damn thing work... U. S. Army view: We'll test this dog to the best of our abilities, even if we have to drag it across the finish line... Marmon-Herrington's view: If they though the CTL's were (ahem) challenging. Well, they ain't seen nothing yet... (insert semi-evil laugh here)

[@MariaShiranui]

Does anyone know where to get such nicely detailed die-cast Abrams tank models like the one on his desk?

[@Silverhks]

My only previous knowledge of this tank is from the game War in the Pacific. Where it is used by MANY allied land units

[@Nipplator99999999999]

A question based on a statement from the linked video, is everything that is named a variation of valiant worth more in pieces than assembled? I had a Plymouth Valiant and I literally shot it, and bought a car named Citation just so I wasn't annoyed with it living up to its name... I wasn't disappointed either, it ran better with 2 cylinders hanging out of the block than it did running on all four.

[@mathewweeks9069]

Your awesome and awesome video be safe out there

[@roadstarman58]

The water in the radiator 'boiling furiously' is no surprise considering the tank was powered by an 85 hp Ford V8. It's probably the most efficiently designed water heater ever made with the exhaust runners passing through the water jackets.

[@cheyannei5983]

I imagine the other engines weren't so bad

[@beencybouncyburger]

Yes, the flathead v8 and LZ v12 require *just a tad* more cooling than their horsepower numbers suggest. On the other hand, they did just fine with the Ford flathead in the universal carriers, so one assumes M-H just screwed up on having enough cooling capacity.

[@cheyannei5983]

@@beencybouncyburger I feel like the British are more likely to make do by adapting the hardware and usage than do the US military thing of immediately look for a replacement. Plus, the UC were some 3 tons lighter if memory serves.

[@beencybouncyburger]

@@cheyannei5983 two tons lighter (just over three tons unladen vs. just under five), so better power to weight with the v8 than the tankette with a Lincoln-Zephyr v12, but not hugely. I think both were detuned from car spec horsepower, so some wiggle room should have been possible. Not only was the '32 Ford an icon and trucks powered by the v8s a mainstay into the '50s, but the UC was the most produced armored vehicle ever. That being said, there's a reason Chuck Berry's song "Maybellene" features a Ford V8 overheating, and a reason the early v12s were known for it too. Very possible I think that Marmon-Herrington made also a simple mistake of assuming it would need as much cooling as a typical six of similar capacity, and it just didn't.

[@RonJohn63]

All that radiator boiling... no ethylene glycol in the radiator?

[@jon-paulfilkins7820]

As I start this video, i'm thinking, low bar!

[@xt6wagon]

It doesn't sound too bad till you get to the lack of "here is version 1.1, now with more cooling for all the things". Combo of issues of being one of the first tanks a company makes plus the usual stupidity with interwar tank procurement going on here. Few nations seemed to want to spend any money on tanks, even the UK seems to be more about selling overseas to make money than actual tank development.

[@chromiumphotography5138]

@15.13 any similarity to a Panzer 1?

[@Jccarlton1400]

AS training tools these things functioned perfectly. In combat, I hope that none of them reached combat.

[@jangustl_wt2358]

For the poor mechanics these things are great training tools, to learn every type of failure of a bad design.

[@zachsmith1676]

@@jangustl_wt2358 if tankers had to train on these I bet they'd be great at doing "Third Echelon Maintenance" (Field Repairs as far as I can tell) and would be very happy indeed once they get through training and are given an actual tank rather than a cobbled-together "Tank"

[@Cancun771]

Training tools for mechanics...

[@PSPaaskynen]

I believe the USMC Marmon-Herringtons were kept at the Samoa base and never saw action. There is footage of a Marmon Herrington CTL-6 (?) being launched from a landing craft, which was used to illustrate Operation Torch in the influential British documentary TV series The World at War, but this may have been a mistake.

[@paulgdunsford7469]

G’day mate couple of mates are talking about a trip up north to the the Cairns tank museum and throughs ?

[@Cancun771]

Oooh that's where the penis tank lives!1

[@davidgreen5099]

It sounds great!!! I'll take two, one in green, one in tan.

[@GeneralJackRipper]

Is it just me, or do weapon advertisements sound darn sexy?

[@farmerboy916]

I so want these to work. I have a soft spot for tankettes and the like that could be parked in a garage

[@martijn9568]

Hey Chieftain. What was the point behind light tanks for the US Army during WW2? After watching your prefious videos on the Sherman it seems like it was mobile enough to the point that the Army wouldn't need light tanks. What am I missing? Thanks for responding, a guy who got interested in tanks due to your channel after only liking planes.

[@tacomas9602]

14:10 glad I have AC.

[@randymagnum143]

So, about as reliable as a t34?

[@julmdamaslefttoe3559]

Great video as always

[@Corry-be4kz]

How awsome are you. You have inspired me to design tanks. You have helped me so much I may be 12 but all that i no came from you.your amazing. Also i would like to no What was it like when you were in combat. What did you do? Did you destroy a tank? Were you scared? How did you get into tanks. Corey B

[@timothyboles6457]

The Ford V8's AKA the Flathead were notorious for overheating because of weak water pumps. The overheating was worse for the Lincoln V12 Flathead for the same reason and larger engine

[@Bird_Dog00]

Why not solve the problem by bolting a better water pump on? No realy, what as the reason for not doing this, if the problem had been identified?

[@timothyboles6457]

@@Bird_Dog00 the better water pumps were not around when the original flathead were in production. Almost every Flathead block has at least 1 crack in it from overheating issues. As I said, the V8s weren't as bad as the V12s. Modern Hot rodders have access to decent water pumps. But those were only developed in the last 15 years or so. Not in the 1930s and 1940s

[@Bird_Dog00]

@@timothyboles6457 Hmm.. But other companies made V8s and V12s in the same time (V8s were around since at least the 1910s) and I haven't heard of them all having the same issues.

[@timothyboles6457]

@@Bird_Dog00 you're right. But Ford V8s were a different and new casting process. And the other V8s that you speak of were high end cars and low production. But Ford V8s had a habit of boiling over just in cars, much less an armored vehicle

[@Bird_Dog00]

@@timothyboles6457 Engineering is facinating. Being a mechanic myself I love disecting issues and exploring why certain fingerquotes "obvious" sollutions weren't implemented. Did Ford have a particular problem with its engine design? And, what was that new and special casting process? If an engine tends to overheat where other engines don't I would first assume a desing flaw, not material properties (and when you mention a new casting process, I think material properties first).

[@deth3021]

I was interested in the experimental tracks...

[@turbowolf302]

....I bet this would make a great movie.

[@memonk11]

Yeah... but other than that what was wrong with it?

[@od1452]

I know they were used in the Aleutians. It would be interesting to see how they performed.

[@ME-hm7zm]

@Biden BlowsGoats Bummer. The cooler air might have mitigated some of the heating issues.

[@gerardlabelle9626]

I was just reading about the Aleutians campaign. I don’t think any tank could have handled the muskeg.

[@davidbrennan660]

I am siting comfortably..... begin... Armored Branch buy ‘Japanese tanks”..... .

[@Nipplator99999999999]

When has a Ford V-8 been an upgrade...after the mid 1920's?

[@billbolton]

Sounds like my first car.

[@alantheinquirer7658]

I am no engineer, vehicular or otherwise, but I wonder what on Earth the creators of these ... things were hoping to do! I mean, you might get a clunker sold to a sucker from a used car salesman but M-H seemed to think getting past Aberdeen was a 'mere formality' and they'd be banking the money while the Marine Corps were sending them out into the field. Seriously - didn't M-H actually test their product before the sales pitch?

[@kennethestes4489]

You missed the sections of Marines Under Armor that covered the later USMC Marmon-Herringtons, 20 CTL-6 and the five CTM-3TDS, initially equipping the fourth company each of 1st and 2d Tank Battalions Feb-Mar42, but eventually rejected by the battalion commanders before they deployed to SWPac and relegated to the 1st and 2d Separate Tank Companies that were sent later to Samoa to relieve two light tank companies previously sent there. there were no engine 'upgrades' to the USMC Marmon-Herringtons. First five CTL-3s had the Lincoln Zepher, the rest and the CTL-6 the Hercules WXCL-3. The diesels were for the "medium" Marmon-Herrington CTM-3TBD. The newer Marmon-Herringtons were criticized by the COs 1st and 2d Separate Tank Companies [pp.42-44. The CTL-3s had no special M-H armor, just plates cast by a safe company. The .50 caliber gun was seldom used in the CLT tanks and a single ,50 was preferred in the turreted CTM. The M-H Company only had experience with all wheel drive trucks before making their CTLs, with predictable results.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

I don't know how many of the CTLs received the Ford engine, but the Aberdeen report is clear that that was what was in the vehicle they tested, down to the serial number.

[@kennethestes4489]

Maybe that's the Lincoln Zepher, as Lincoln=Ford; The CTLs under testing came from Quantico, which had the first 10 CTLs received in the USMC. I'm also puzzled by Wiki references to a Colt .30 in the CTLs; never saw anything but M1919 Brownings mentioned nor in photos.

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

@@kennethestes4489 Was the Zephyr a V12 or V8? The reference to the Colt was in the Army report of the MTLS, not the CTL-3.

[@kennethestes4489]

@@TheChieftainsHatch I show it a V-12 in my book; a quick Google shows the same: produced 1936-48. When I discovered the [apparently] lone survivor CTL-3 in the So. El Monte CA American Military Museum, it still had the Zephyr in it, so there was not an engine change to the CTL-3M, only suspension components. It's curious that the Colt MG has migrated to the Wiki entry on the CTL-3; what gives?

[@TheChieftainsHatch]

@@kennethestes4489 Check your email, I sent you the spec sheet from Aberdeen. Not only does it have the Ford V8 noted, but I note that the fuel tanks are actually smaller than as advertised in the Marmon-Herrington brochure. Hunnicutt's Stuart (p 112, original edition) states "The final version of this tank tested by the Corps was powered by an 85hp Ford V-8 engine which drove the vehicle at a maximum road speed of about 30 miles/hour. Tests with this tank continued until 1939" Unfortunately, there is no indication I have encountered as to whether this one tank Aberdeen borrowed from the Marines was that same specific test vehicle as a one-off, or if there was a general conversion of any other V12s to the Ford V8. The wiki page I'm looking at says M1919s for CTL-3. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmon-Herrington_CTLS . The CTL-3 was advertised by M-H as having the Colt as the 'default', maybe whichever page you're looking at went with factory specification, not USMC specification?

[@napalmholocaust9093]

Getting to the test IS the test.